Monday, November 15, 2010

ConservativeHome: ‘Islam should become our state religion’

When His Grace first read the article on ConservativeHome proposing that Islam should be adopted as the UK’s state religion, he thought it might be a frivolous provocation or purposely inciteful piece to engender reasoned debate, as the author is indeed an intelligent and honourable gentlemen of considerable political insight and religious discernment.

His Grace has long admired the author, Melanchthon, and so played along with the ruse and contributed a few thoughts.

But yesterday a second article appeared, without any ConHome disclaimer or author’s ‘personal capacity’ notification, in which Melanchthon denied that his proposal was anything but serious. He said: “Some of you appear to imagine my remarks to be satirical. I am quite serious about this.”

And His Grace began to mistake ConservativeHome for the Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’.

Seriously, the proposal is wholesale: to replace Christmas and Easter with Islamic holidays; to have leading imams anoint the Monarch at his or her coronation (notwithstanding that Muslims do not ‘anoint’); Islamic prayers before debates in Parliament; imams instead of bishops in the Upper House; privileged slots on public service broadcasting; a compulsory short Muslim act of worship each day in state schools; and the incorporation into British jurisprudence of Islamic concepts of justice.

All of this, we are assured, ‘would be better than the way we’re going at the moment’.

It may indeed be superlative religio-philosophical sarcasm, but the denial is a satire too far and, on a site with the prominence and standing of ConservativeHome, quite in danger of leading astray the politically naïve and spiritually weak.

Whilst the author is unequivocal in his assertion that ‘Anglican Christianity is best’, he is apparently persuaded that it is Islam to which we must now look ‘to provide moral purpose to our politics and moral guidance to our people’.

This is because ‘our Establishment finds it impossible, any longer, to be respectful of Christian goals and morals’.

Melanchthon does not appear to be particularly enamoured of secularism as an option, and so proposes an ‘Anglicized form of Islam’ which would be ‘willing to compromise for influence (as Protestant Christianity did) by accepting that secular rulers would select its religious leaders’.

He appears to be unaware that Gordon Brown adjusted this arrangement and surrendered the Prime Minister’s power under the royal prerogative to choose diocesan bishops: it is now the Church which selects them (ie the Crown Nominations Commission and the Supreme Governor: ‘secular rulers’ no longer play any part).

And it would therefore be the mosques which would appoint imams, for it would be unacceptably discriminatory to deprive the mosques of the process which has been devolved to the Church.

The adoption of Islam, we are assured, would not oblige is to ‘introduce Sharia Law or forcibly convert everyone to Islam’.

Unfortunately, Melanchthon appears to know very little about sharia.

There is no ‘Sharia Law’, in the definite-article, upper-case sense of absolute unifying authority in the fashion of the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. By opting for the extreme of forcible conversion, he might as well have talked of dismemberment or the stoning of homosexuals. But it is not these interpretations of sharia which would undermine centuries of Common Law tradition or human rights based on the Judaeo-Christian scriptures. We would be faced immediately with ‘moderate’ sharia, such as those proposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury: marriage courts which would discriminate against the wife and daughters, or criminal courts in which the testimony of a woman or a non-believer would be considered less than that of a male Muslim.

Islam is about sharia and jihad as much as Christianity is about sacrifice and love. The West’s understanding of the Arabic terms is now inseparable from the crass media caricature, but theologically to talk of Islam without either is to talk of Jesus without the cross.

ConservativeHome proposes Islam as the state religion, despite a mere 4 per cent of the population expressing adherence to that religio-political construct, because they quite erroneously assert that ‘we haven’t historically needed most people to be Christians to have Christianity as a state religion’.

This is a bizarrely ahistorical assertion: there has not been a time in the post-Augustinian mission era in which Christians have not constituted a majority on these islands; even if that majority – measured at 72 percent in 2001 – is made up culturally-affiliated Christians.

The article points out that the Establishment ‘is already enamoured of Islam’ and ‘also hates itself and what it has stood for, with the unpleasant consequence that it has become virulently anti-Christian’. This is undoubtedly true, though some may prefer ‘fearful’ to ‘enamoured’. There is no doubt that the state has become anti-Christian in ways that it would not dare to be anti-Muslim. And so they conclude that 'we have reached the point where it would be better for Christians if they stood apart from the Establishment’.

So why have ConservativeHome not commissioned an article on disestablishment?

Why have ConservativeHome not commissioned an article on the need for the Church of England to acquire some teeth?

Why play along with the Establishment-media narrative of the demise and death of Christianity and the inexorable ascendancy of Islam, when such a proposal can only make Christians feel more hated by the Establishment than they already do?

It is one thing to challenge the idea that society is ‘secular’ (or atheist, materialist and agnostic). But it is quite another to argue that this justifies the rape of the Constitution and the abandonment of the foundation of those very liberties which have made us what we are. It is one thing to observe that the Establishment no longer finds inspiration in Christianity, but quite another to conclude that ‘the best alternative is Islam’.

His Grace attempted to engage the author, but he did not respond.

Islam is undoubtedly one of the great religions of the world, and there are profound strands of correlation between its precepts and the principles of conservatism.

But ConservativeHome appears not to grasp that Melanchthon’s vision is itself a fundamentally un-conservative proposal: indeed, it would constitute a most un-Burkean revolution in the state, more akin to the spirit of the French Revolution than to English traditions of organic reform.

The notion of ‘liberty’ for the Christian has a quite distinct theological lineage, not only from sin and the power of evil, but also in the Calvinist understanding of church governance – 'liberty from Romish hierarchies’. According to Burke, 'to preserve that liberty inviolate, is the peculiar duty and proper trust of a member of the House of Commons'.

When Locke published The Reasonableness of Christianity, he made observations on basic human equality reasoned from the Bible which are quite antithetical to those of the Qur'an. The love of one’s neighbour is central to Christianity, yet the few ayats in the Qur’an that mention love are a world apart in meaning from those of the New Testament. Allah’s love is conditional upon obedience to his precepts, and so we read: ‘Allah loveth not the impious and the guilty’ (4:107). Love is something Allah offers conditionally, while YHWH is love (1Jn 4:8), incarnate in Christ, and the command to believers is to love their neighbours unconditionally. This is antithetical to qur’anic teachings on love, justice and mercy, which exhort Muslims to love their co-religionists above the kuffar: ‘Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends’ (5:59); ‘Fight those who believe not in Allah or his Apostle, even if they are the People of the Book until they submit’ (9:29).

At the same time as Locke was concerned to examine the extent to which the state should coerce in order to pursue the moral good, Burke was among the first to observe that society is organic, and that change must be evolutionary, not revolutionary, consonant with social mores and sensitive to national traditions.

One does not, of course, need to believe in God in order to be a conservative: political activity may be pursued quite independently of God. But conservative philosophy is not independent of the belief in God. There is a distinct secular conservative tradition, but the inspiration of the Christian faith and the hope that it engenders have been at the heart of many conservative social reforms and its contribution to civil society: the faith has found its expression in the law and in the institutions of law-making in England to such an extent that the separation of Church and State would now be a distinctly un-conservative revolution fraught with complexities. And there is the very moot question of the extent to which politicians can legislate at all while ignoring the professed religious beliefs of the majority of those they seek to govern. Politics cannot be detached from religion when the body politic is defined by its religious history and identifies, even passively, with a particular creed.

Conservatism arises from the sense that one belongs to some continuing and pre-existing social order. This common life has traditionally been embodied by the geographical parishes of the Church of England, to which the majority of the nation, and the majority of Conservative Party members, still express allegiance: it incarnates the nation’s history, traditions, culture and prejudice. These, for the conservative, are the principles of social life which constitute an unwritten social bond – even a transcendental connection with the Church of England – Christ’s body in the nation. If there are obligations and allegiances which govern all earthly contracts, it is a small step from belief in a transcendent bond to belief in the transcendent Being who upholds it. For the conservative, there is a natural source of laws at least akin to the divine command, if not precisely that. These laws are underpinned by what may now be termed ‘natural justice’, and in the United Kingdom our understanding of that justice is shaped by the Christian faith.

It is not immediately clear why ConservativeHome carries an article which not only proposes a profoundly un-conservative constitutional revolution but also a traumatic social shift, or why Lord Ashcroft’s money has been used to commission it.

In the ConservativeHome exposition of their raison d'être, they refer to a number of shields, of which the sixth is 'faith'. It purposely stands at the centre of their banner design, and it is not just any faith which is represented, but specifically the Christian faith. They note: "Not all conservatives are religious but most conservatives are still affected by Britain's Judaeo-Christian inheritance. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, reminds us of part of that legacy in today's Times:

"Christmas reminds us of a God who is completely committed to the weakest, who uses power only so that human life can be fuller, more peaceful and generous, who gives us the help we need to make our relationships stable and faithful – and who requires of us a complete honesty about ourselves, and gently, steadily, chips away our self-deceptions. Christmas tells us that our best instincts about human nature and what’s needed for a healthy world and society aren’t just things we’ve made up. They are rooted in the way the whole universe is shaped by God."

In light of this, an article published on Remembrance Sunday which advocates the wholesale replacement of the Church of England with the Mosque of England is incongruous, to say the least. Judging by some of the comments, many found it offensive.

Would ConservativeHome commission articles promoting Marxist-Socialism over Conservatism, or the merits of Ken Livingstone over those of Boris Johnson, just to provoke debate?

"Whilst the author is unequivocal in his assertion that ‘Anglican Christianity is best’, he is apparently persuaded that it is Islam to which we must now look ‘to provide moral purpose to our politics and moral guidance to our people’.

Incidentally there is no biblical basis for believing that any denominational group is "best".There is only Christianity. It needs and requires no other patron to endorse its truth or to be effective.

"change must be evolutionary, not revolutionary, consonant with social mores and sensitive to national traditions."

William Quilliam adapted Christian hymns for his Muslim converts in Liverpool.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vcpqf

"His short book The Faith of Islam (1889) became a best-seller, and his weekly paper, the Crescent, came to be known throughout the Muslim world. He even adapted Christian hymns for Muslim worship. He pulled no punches in his critique of Christian theology, which he regarded as a mixture of the sentimental and the ridiculous. His mosque, needless to say, was often attacked by Liverpool mobs."

"Conservatism arises from the sense that one belongs to some continuing and pre-existing social order. This common life has traditionally been embodied by the geographical parishes of the Church of England, to which the majority of the nation, and the majority of Conservative Party members, still express allegiance: it incarnates the nation’s history, traditions, culture and prejudice. These, for the conservative, are the principles of social life which constitute an unwritten social bond – even a transcendental connection with the Church of England – Christ’s body in the nation."

"Christ's body in the nation" is but a grandiose and meaningless phrase - perhaps that is typically Christian.

Timely reforms will avoid a revolution, which would be profoundly unConservative.

Christianity as a means of obtaining social cohesion has signally failed.

Sentimentality and nostalgia will not bring it back to its former glory.

Indeed, Christianity is the despised religion of the despised West, the failing and feminised religion of a failing civilisation, effeminate, illegitimate, emasculated and degenerate.

"the few ayats in the Qur’an that mention love are a world apart in meaning from those of the New Testament. Allah’s love is conditional upon obedience to his precepts, and so we read: ‘Allah loveth not the impious and the guilty’ (4:107). Love is something Allah offers conditionally, while YHWH is love (1Jn 4:8), incarnate in Christ, and the command to believers is to love their neighbours unconditionally."

Unconditional love is a holy grail.

Even God does not have our unconditional love. Our love for Him is entirely conditional on our belief in His existence and that He possesses the characteristics of being unique, omnipotent, omniscient and eternal.

Indeed, Christianity is the despised religion of the despised West, the failing and feminised religion of a failing civilisation, effeminate, illegitimate, emasculated and degenerate.

If you switched Christianity for suicidally stupid and despised politicians you'd be right on the button. Speaking as an agnostic I find Islam infinitely more unpalatable than Christianity but then I'm female and don't hold with all that Medieval male superiority, rape and beatings is acceptable within marriage crap.

@Anabaptist, whist the position you advocate is consistent, I'm not sure I understand.

Surely every state has a 'religion' of some sort inasmuch that it serves some god or other. There is no 'neutral' state any more than people seem to think there is a value-neutral classroom. Are you not in effect saying is that the highest value is to have no values on which to base your governance?

And, if we were to have a state religion, surely anyone of sound mind would have to say the worst possible one would be Islam?

"It is not immediately clear why ConservativeHome carries an article which not only proposes a profoundly un-conservative constitutional revolution but also a traumatic social shift, or why Lord Ashcroft’s money has been used to commission it.

Would they commission articles promoting Marxist-Socialism over Conservatism, or the merits of Ken Livingstone over those of Boris Johnson, just to provoke debate?"

I must congratulate Tim Montgomerie on allowing such a controversial post to be displayed. It is really the best thing he has done so far.

There is nothing wrong with debate, Your Grace, absolutely nothing wrong about it at all.

You must not take it so badly when you read things you disagree with.

A state religion that is no longer fit for purpose should be abandoned like the old boiler that it is.

I saw the story on ConservativeHome yesterday and found it offensive reading on Remembrance Sunday.

As we remembered the many who fought and died to protect us from tyranny, Melanchthon proposes that we subject ourselves to a religious ideology that would deny us the freedom so many died for. Disgraceful.

"Speaking as an agnostic I find Islam infinitely more unpalatable than Christianity but then I'm female and don't hold with all that Medieval male superiority, rape and beatings is acceptable within marriage crap."

Of course you do, of course you do, "Gnostic".

In practice most women submit to sex with the man they want a continuing relationship with. Stephen Fry was absolutely right when he was suggesting that women were just little like - dread word - prostitutes, though I see that he has since been got at by the Feminazis.

It was only in 1991 that the UK abolished the concept of the implied consent of the wife to having sex with her husband.

The Taliban are suggesting that 4 times a week is a reasonable requirement.

Do people have any thoughts on the reasonableness or otherwise of this requirement? If the wife says no she doesn't get fed.

Come on you no the answer to this; because most people don’t believe in it or the god behind it.

Melanchthon is clearly suffering from the effects of substance abuse (although his comments have no substance). We need less religion not more. However those religions that are in terminal decline look enviously at the one that isn’t (yet). Islam holds sway over millions and it does so by demanding total obedience, wouldn’t you just love that for Christianity? Well it aint gonna happen!

Islam is a threat to democratic western values and at some stage in the future that will be recognised by our supine leaders and we will have to get rid of it from our own shores and contain it within those countries where irradiation is impossible. The first serious challenge will come from Turkey’s attempt to join the EU. This should be resisted (and I think it will be) at all costs. There is no more reason to bring an Islamic country into the EU than there would have been to welcome the Nazi’s. Turkey may have a secular constitution now but don’t bank on it staying that way. We already have an Islamic fifth column established in the UK and another atrocity like 7/7 is not far away. Unfortunately that is what it will take before we wake up! Religion is the problem, as it always has been and not the solution.

"if we were to have a state religion, surely anyone of sound mind would have to say the worst possible one would be Islam?"

I am of sound mind, Rebel Saint. Indeed, I was once told that I am one of the sanest people around. Perhaps your implication that anyone who disagrees with you must be mad is an assertion that is indicative of the quality of your thinking.

I doubt if you have ever read the Koran and are, like His Grace, "informed" only by your dislike of Muslims that is proportionate to your inability to establish or administer a religion that is actually fit for purpose.

In other words, it is your very powerlessness that fuels your hatred of Muslims and all things Islamic.

But what has made you powerless are your women and the unnatural and toxic ideology you follow - feminism, which indulges the worst of the feminine vices - female promiscuity, single motherhood, family breakdown and the social, intellectual, cultural and economic impoverishment of being White Trash.

"As we remembered the many who fought and died to protect us from tyranny, Melanchthon proposes that we subject ourselves to a religious ideology that would deny us the freedom so many died for. Disgraceful."

How idiotic of "Ancient Briton" to imagine for a moment that the fighting of any war would prevent tyranny for ever more.

Is this an example of "Christian" thinking?

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, don't you know.

All religions make you less free, in the sense that there will be rules to follow if you want to follow a religion.

Christianity, by pretending that it has no rules and is a free for all, has perpetrated a fraud on its adherents that they are too stupid to recognise.

That is why Islam will take over, because it is clearly more rational, less hypocritical and more clear in its exhortations.

In Islam, there will be no danger of gay imams demanding civil partnership ceremonies in mosques.

There are more active members of the CofE by a few hundred thousand than the combined membership of the three main politics parties. Note just active members of the CofE. That isn't including the nonconformists, Romans, and all the other Cristian sects. Back in May this country's future was decided by a party with less than 69,000 members. If we don't believe God, then surely we definitely don't believe in any of the main parties who have over the last hundred years taken this country from world leader to Third World proto-state.

Most (ordinary) people don’t do faith anymore and that applies as much to political as it does to religious belief. Our “decline” as a nation is as much to do with the rise of others as the fall of ourselves. All great powers decline, we have had our day as a superpower and there was nothing any of our political parties could do to stop this process. You can argue about the policies the might have best managed this decline like joining the EU or whether to support our manufacturing industries as opposed to letting them disappear in favour of financial services but we are still here in the world premier league even if towards the bottom of the table.

Claire, perhaps you are just being deliberately provocative but in case you are serious, Nazism and Communism are not the threats they once were but Islam is in its desire that we should all be Muslims to have 'peace' on their terms.

You are right though "there will be no danger of gay imams demanding civil partnership ceremonies in mosques". Executions would have seen to that.

If you are serious I suggest you watch this video:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781#or if you can't spare the time to get the facts there is a shorter message at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w&feature=player_embedded

Mr Rebel Saint (11:32) tells me:'@Anabaptist, whist the position you advocate is consistent, I'm not sure I understand.

Surely every state has a 'religion' of some sort inasmuch that it serves some god or other. There is no 'neutral' state any more than people seem to think there is a value-neutral classroom. Are you not in effect saying is that the highest value is to have no values on which to base your governance? '

I have no idea why you assume that every state must have a collective, monolithic religious identity. That is a belief derived from paganism. The ancient Romans permitted a large variety of religious views and practices, as long as the central tenet of emperor-worship was accepted. It was that which bound the state together, according to them.

That idea was transmitted via Constantinian practice, whereby he decreed that Christianity should be the state religion in place of its former pagan attachments. The Christendom idea took off from there and has been present more or less in all mainstream Christian denominations ever since. You surely don't want a history lesson from me.

At the point Christianity was hijacked by Constantine and his successors, the 'church' gave itself over to idolatry.

Hitherto, Christianity had been marginalised and persecuted. And yet it throve in those circumstances. But from then on it became oppressive, persecuting and increasingly corrupt. The emphasis moved from personal faith to compulsion, in the name of state cohesion. The practices of infant baptism, 'Christian' armies, clergy-laity distinction, state-sponsored ceremony and state-approved liturgy and theology, and others, all came to the forefront. Dissent was, in the nature of things, not allowed.

It took many centuries for any sort of alternative to surface (that is, in the view of history, which, being written by the victors, certainly blanked out much of what they didn't like). That alternative, based on the Christianity taught, patterned and exemplified in the New Testament was the Anabaptist phenomenon.

Genuine Christianity (that is the Christianity of the New Testament, of Jesus and of Paul) does not rely for its existence or its health upon the weapons and force of this world and its Caesar-like rulers. Churches (not 'the church') are local assemblies of people who actually believe, rather than some mass of people compelled or induced by the state to adhere nominally to a set of imposed doctrines or passively to take part in liturgical activities prescribed and approved by the state.

I care nothing for the idea that the state must have a religion to which all its citizens subscribe. That concept is the way of oppression, compulsion and satan.

I agree with you with you theologically - more so than I do with Cranmer. Salvation and faith cannot be 'imposed' on people, I fully appreciate this.

However, for a state to acknowledge that the nation is in submission to a higher authority doesn't oblige all it's citizens to subscribe to that religion, no more than having a conservative government makes us all conservatives. And, like I said, every state implicitly or explicitly constitutes itself around some ideology. Surely it is better to have our state acknowledging the God & Father of our Lord Jesus than the false gods of self or Muhammed?

Can I assume you are also against church schools, or any faith based organisation? Would you, for example, support those secularists who would remove support from Salvation Army hostels because they say grace before meals - is this religion by compulsion or imposition? [Not rhetorical questions]

If this character 'Melancthon' has written such a thing, he must either be grossly ignorant or terminally stupid. This country needs the substance of his recommendations as much as it needs a hole in the head. Who in their right mind would gladly accept such a proposition? It beggars belief.

And by the way - why has he chosen Dr Philip Melancthon's name as a pseudonym? He was an outstanding Protestant Reformer (like Cranmer) who had more finesse and good manners than his contemporary Martin Luther. But for all his moderation, he would be enraged if he knew what his name was being lent to..

Mr Rebel Saint, I am certainly not against church schools, or any other faith-based organisation, but I think they should be voluntary, and not funded or supported in any way by the government/taxpayer. I do not believe in state education, so I can't see this as a problem.

Similarly, I think SA hostels should be free to give thanks before meals if that's what they want to do, as long as they are not funded by the state/taxpayer. I don't think it is the role of the state to be involved in charitable ventures, partly because as soon as those ventures take the king's shilling they fall under his control. See Catholic adoption agencies for an example of that.

And what does it mean to say that a state should acknowledge some sort of religious view? What, actually, is the state? The acknowledgement of the God and Father of Jesus is a matter for individuals and churches (which, as I have said, are assemblies of believing Christians), and not for an impersonal organisation -- the state.

The idea of a nation having in any sense at all to conform to the king's own personal religion is anathema to the New Testament. Jesus wants disciples, not the official calling out of 'Lord, Lord.'

Honestly, Your Grace, I am stunned by this. I know that the Evil One holds the world in its sway, because the Bible tells me so and I can see it with my very own eyes. But honestly, Your Grace, I am stunned.

@Anabaptist, forgive me, but I think I see a flaw in you arguments here.

Catholic adoption agencies are a good case in point. They did NOT fail because they took money from the state. Even if they were entirely private enterprises they would have been forced to close. Indeed, you cannot even decide who you have as guests in your own home any more. This is, to a large degree, because our nation is no longer acknowledging or subjecting itself to Godly precepts but to the precepts of men. It is as foolish as the men of Babel who placed themselves higher than God - as do all secular states of which you seem to be advocating. That is because every nation - just like every school, or every organisation right down to individual families - places itself under the jurisdiction of some authority.

A church school cannot impose faith on children, but it can say that we acknowledge - and dedicate this establishment to - the glory & honour of Almighty God. And as scripture tells us, acknowledge God and He will direct our paths.

[And as an aside, the faith of the New testament, of Paul & Jesus, wasn't quite as wholly individualistic as you seem to be advocating. The leaders of households, clans, tribes and nations would all declare a collective faith would you not agree?]

@ Claire Khaw (11:58)—That is why Islam will take over, because it is clearly more rational, less hypocritical and more clear in its exhortations.

More rationalA religion founded by a trickster (PBUH) to sanctify his hedonistic lifestyle is never going to be rational, and the trickster found himself dreaming up so many contradictory ‘revelations’ that he was obliged to pull the Verse of Abrogation (2:106) out of thin air to tidy things up: where there is a conflict between a later and an earlier verse, the later overrules the earlier.

Less hypocriticalIslam markets itself as the Religion of Peace™ yet Qur’an 2:191 orders Muslims to ‘Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.’ Less hypocritical? ROFLMAO.

More clear in its exhortationsHere, we find ourselves in complete agreement. In its najis (impure or unclean) list, Islamic law includes kafir (non-Muslim) along with urine and fæces. You can’t get much clearer than that: non-Muslims are the equivalent of piss and shit.

If the folks in Britain do not get a backbone and stand up for the Christian-Judeo principles you were founded upon than perhaps you should all become Muslim. Good grief you guys, grow a pair for crying out loud. As Britain becomes more and more an atheist nation and an anti-christian nation than something else will fill that vacuum. Compromising will not work. Stand up and stand true.

Although I'm a communicant member of the Church Of England, I wholeheartedly agree with Anabaptist and Rebel Saint in their arguments against any state religion. The rot started with Constantine without doubt. I would be more than happy to see C of E disestablished - but not if some other creed takes its place. When the demon returns, it finds its house swept and empty - and occupies it with seven others more wicked than himself. And the last state is worse than the first..

Mr Rebel Saint: As far as I am aware, the problem with the Catholic adoption agencies is the involvement of the state in adoption, including money. As soon as they got involved with the state they became an instrument of the state. Which is my point.

As to your 'aside', which is actually not an aside but the main point, you ask: 'The leaders of households, clans, tribes and nations would all declare a collective faith would you not agree?'

No, I certainly wouldn't agree that such is New Testament practice. I'm a baptist. It may be have become subsequent practice but is not in accord with the NT model, in which all must believe and repent for themselves. I am at a loss to understand how repentance and the faithful following of Jesus can be seen as something imposed by tribal leaders. Whereas they can, of course, impose an outward conformity with theological and liturgica forms. But that is not Christianity: it is paganism dressed up as Christianity.

I don't know Conservativehome is & what, if any sway it has & to be honest I don't care.The response that springs to mind is "You cannot be serious!" & one hopes that this was as Your Grace intimated a silly joke that has gone too far.Why would we Christians want to believe in a set of rules that have been apparently dictated by a creature purporting to be an angel to a man in a cave? the factual foundation of this is on a par with Joseph Smith's chat with the spectacle bearing 'Moroni' & the golden plates of Mormon belief, so should we all embrace mormonism?perhaps the thousands of gods of Hinduism would appeal to the more exotic tastes. Or the philosophy of the Buddha or maybe the angry Chinese gods of Tao.The Bible is the Revealed word of God, as such it towers above all the philosophical works, the rest of it's imitators & ideals of moral law that mankind has written in an attempt to preserve the staus quo by bribery, force or coercion. It is rooted in real traceable history from the Old to the New.as it is written "The New testament is hidden in the old & the Old testament is revealed in the New". It is rooted in human history, with a traceable pedigree unlike the others.It's up to the individal to decide what & who to believe & follow & the freedom to choose is a right that must not be denied to any man.The 'Establishment' Church has many weaknesses & faults, mainly due to fallible foolish men who think they can improve on God's work & perhaps it's high time for a good thorough spiritual spring clean in the Church. But the word that the edifice stands on is a solid rock, a foundation that will never be moved. If all Christs Followers were killed today, the word will still stand & they will return with Him at the end of the age to put all His foes under His feet. When Every knee will bow & Every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

Mr Tony B, the C of E and paedobaptism go together (although of course several nonconformist denominations are also paedobaptist). The C of E is posited on the assumption that Christianity is a national religion, and therefore all members of the nation are by birth members of the C of E. Admittedly all that has become somewhat attentuated in recent times, but that's what lies at the root of it.

And I'm glad to note you are attracted by the baptist malarkey. We can support our position from the New Testament, which speaks nothing (positive) about state churches or compulsion.

If you are speaking from the States then don’t believe blogs like this offer a fair reflection of British public opinion or that Melanchthon is anything but a crank and understand that unlike in the US atheism is not only respectable but admired here, two out of the three party leaders are atheists, and along with agnosticism is the majority position of most people. Islam is not going to rush in and fill the void because there is no void. However Islam is dangerous because it seeks to dominate the host culture and politicians here are too stupid to have woken up to this threat.

To help understanding of others Johnny, with your kind permission your grace,

[2:190]Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight you, and do not transgress. Verily, Allah does not like the transgressors.

[2:191]Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, as Fitnah (to create disorder) is more severe than killing. However, do not fight them near Al-Masjid-ul-Harām (the Sacred Mosque in Makkah) unless they fight you there. However, if they fight you (there) you may kill them. Such is the reward of the disbelievers.

[2:192]But if they desist, then indeed, Allah is Most-Forgiving, Very- Merciful.

[2:193]Fight them until there is no Fitnah any more, and obedience remains for Allah. But, if they desist, then aggression is not allowed except against the transgressors.

Filth:

"The Arabs, both men and women, circumambulated the Ka'bah in a state of nudity with their hands - clapping, shouting and singing"

[2:105]Those who disbelieve from among the people of the Book and the idolaters do not like that any good should come to you from your Lord. But Allah chooses for His grace whomsoever He wills, and Allah is the Lord of great bounty.

[2:106]Whenever We abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or one equal to it. Do you not know that Allah is powerful over everything?

[2:107]Do you not know that to Allah alone belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth? Other than Allah, you have neither a patron, nor a helper.

A proposal can be serious and non-satirical and yet the author hope that it be the *proposing*, not the *implementing* that achieves his purpose.

M argues that we cannot have no state religion, so if the establishment cannot respect Christianity, then something else will be necessary. He also argues that secularists should be able to accept Christianity as being useful as the state religion even though they don't believe it. Does it not follow that Christians must be able, in principle, to accept that something other than Christianity might be the most useful state religion?

M does not hope for Islam. He hopes for Christianity. But what could be the effects of his proposal? The effect is to reject it vigorously? Why? Because when faced with the options, people understand, in a way they didn't before the option of Islam was offered, that they actually care about having a state religion. Perhaps if the idea got more currency then the British establishment would reject it vigorously, also, taking their only realistic alternative - returning to Christianity as their inspiration.

I think you don't credit your compatriot with enough deviousness, Your Grace. He wants to upset, and in that upset to provoke change of heart. And if no such change of heart can be effected - if the establishment really *is* so anti-Christian that it cannot see its virtue even in contrast to a Muslim alternative - then he must be right in his bald proposal; there must be no chance of restoring Christianity to its proper role and we must look elsewhere for our religious inspiration. If the choices really *are* atheist materialism, animism or Islam, which would you recommend, Your Grace?

There is a void in Britain. I understand that since you are an atheist you will not agree. But the fact is that a significant portion of the world's population need and want religion in their lives. If Christianity disappears in Britain like it seems to be doing then the significant numbers of people who do need and want religion in their life will replace it with something else. Let's say half of Britain is atheist, what about the other half? They will not just go towards atheism they will seek out another religion because they believe in a higher power.

We do agree on one point though, Islam is dangerous because it does want to dominate your culture and politics.....AND will also fill a religious void in your society.

Britons need to stand up and resist this NOW.

Churchill said it best as to why:

"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves."

Live free or die, mate. Deal with this problem now before it becomes too costly.

Signed,holy ghost

(holy to represent Christianity and ghost because I wish to remain anonymous)

Qte:But what has made you powerless are your women and the unnatural and toxic ideology you follow - feminism, which indulges the worst of the feminine vices - female promiscuity, single motherhood, family breakdown and the social, intellectual, cultural and economic impoverishment of being White Trash. End Qte.That seems to me Your Grace, to sum up quite a large part of the present failings, if we look at St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians 1 Vs 11 to 15 we see a very clear statement that has not been enforced for some time in ether the CofE or the Catholic Church. Time has come to reinstate a little discipline and may be burn a few heretics, metaphorically speaking and return to the true path. “With one hand slaying and the other praying”, as the old saying would have it.

If Christianity disappears in Britain like it seems to be doing then the significant numbers of people who do need and want religion in their life will replace it with something else.

This argument is flawed, if people need and want religion why have they rejected it? Islam is alien, only the immigrants want it, the rest of us are mostly hostile towards it. We are much more cynical than most Americans, we don’t believe our politicians or our religious leaders. However there is still a latent need to believe in many people but not in religion, rather an anti-wrinkle cream really works (despite evidence to the contrary) or a “monster” in Loch Ness. People are still gullible and able to “believe” if it suits them. Religion as a force for good and a source of moral values still has some traction with the public at large but it continues to be eroded by the abuse and contraception scandals of the Catholic church. The truth is we just don’t need it any more as an explanation for our existence or as a model for our morality. Eventually even Islam will disappear but in the meantime like you I think it will be necessary oppose it.

Baptist theology:(These are a bit of a mixed bag, but there is a lot of useful information there.)http://www.yellowstone.net/baptist/theology.htm#Websiteshttp://www.baptisthistory.org/baptistsandtheology.htm

The argument is not flawed at all. Most people have not rejected religion, atheists, yes, but most of the world, no. Islam is alien for the time being. However, if Christianity disappears and Islam is left then they will learn more about it and it won't be so alien. Despite what humanists believe, humans really do want boundaries, morals, rules, standards and order in their lives. In the US, people have left the Episcopal and other mainline Protestant churches in droves. They are flocking to other religions seeking out order and a foundation of principles and morals to live their lives with and raise their families. The Mormon church here is growing. Now their theology is, well, "alien" and has been treated with hostility in the past. And yet, people are joining the Mormon church because it gives them structure and a foundation on which to live their lives. They emphasize family values and in this time of crazy uncertainty people want the support of family and community again and that is what the growing churches offer. In the US people can and do choose other christian churches. In Britain there isn't as much choice and if Christianity is destroyed the people will turn to that which is available, ie, Islam, in order to find structure and standards for their life.

Humanism is growing but it will fail. It always does and leads to cultural relativism. This teaches that we must accept everything or we get called haters. Many things deemed as wrong now become accepted and promoted. All povs are true except absolutes of right and wrong or God. No one has the right to judge or punish. This leads to chaos, a breakdown in soceity's moral standards and eventually people go full circle and return back to religion for order.

@ srizals (15:58)—Abrogation explains away the changing tone of the Qur’an from the more peaceful Meccan revelations to the early, and then the final, Medinan revelations. For example, 2:256, revealed in Mohammed’s early days in Medina when he and his followers were still vulnerable: ‘There shall be no compulsion in religion.’ Towards the end of Mohammed’s life, and after many victories in battle, the message becomes ‘When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them.’ (9:5)

The later verse, 9:5, abrogates the earlier. Even Wikipedia agrees that abrogation is linked to contradictions in the Qur’an; see here.

Excellent rebuttal Your Grace. You are best left to this with your skill, knowledge and judgement. I get too upset and emotional and I have nowhere near enough knowledge beyond a simple faith to engage at this level. It's very scary and the level of lunacy that it attracts is actually too scary for me. I will pray for you and for me.

This leads to chaos, a breakdown in soceity's moral standards and eventually people go full circle and return back to religion for order.

This is familiar Christian rhetoric based on fear, a mistrust of humankind and a longing for the old certainties. Well they have gone, we live in a rapidly changing world but clinging to that old worn out life raft is not going to help. Your understanding of the alternative is distorted, peoples moral sense predated religion including your own that usurped that which already owned and tried to sell it back to us.

Religion plays little part in British life except for a few and society hasn’t broken down despite what some here would claim. It clings on to some of its underserved privileges and that is why secularists like me challenge it but generally speaking it has been marginalised. Understandably that upsets many who post here but that is the reality.

By the way my previous comments were referring only to the situation here in Britain.

An another thing, Graham :) This came to me while I was having a run. If you think it is impossible that Islam would fill a vacuum or that Islam is too alien and people would not run to it, I leave you 2 examples, wasn't there a recent conversion to Islam by a Lauren....Lauren....I can't remember her last name, darn it. Isn't she the sister-in-law to your former PM Tony Blair? That is pretty close to the former PM don't you think? Alien, but not so alien.

Look at the US, we have a Muslim or at least a former Muslim as President. Who would have thought?

i nearly threw up reading that vile and disgusting article on remembrance Sunday.

i would sincerely hope that all sane human beings whether religious or not would be out on the streets making even French farmers or students look like pacifists in opposition to even the hint what was suggested becoming law.

the outcome would and more importantly SHOULD make Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" speech look like a retelling of the teddy bears picnic because if it didnt we would end up providing those very rivers of blood under islamic law.

i'm shocked that a sentient being could even suggest that islam had anything good to offer anyone.

I love you man. One day maybe, I hope, your applied wisdom will just crash and the walls will crumble flooding everything with light. In the meantime I look forward to hearing from you daily. You serve a purpose for me but it's rather selfish of me to say so. We project our own darkness onto everything, even us who believe, and we make dark places for ourselves.

Mistrust of humankind and rhetoric based upon fear I can identify with but longing for old certainties?

@ Claire Khaw (20:11)—My intention is rather to create an enlightened kind of Islam called Anglican Islam.

I wish you luck but please be careful. In Pakistan, Ahmadi Muslims practising their enlightened version of Islam have been attacked by followers of orthodox Islam, and the bad blood has spread to Britain.

Europe is still racist,xenophobic and Islamophobic. It is unable to forget and forgive the seige of Vienna in 1683.

I fully understand the FEAR & THE INFERIORITY COMPLEX Factor among some Christians / Jews & the Hindu Groups/Individuals when dealing with the subject of ISLAM.

Today the followers of All the Religions in the World are talking Only about ISLAM, because, it is understandable that You will only talk about SOMETHING WHICH IS TRULY HUGE / GIGANTIC & TREMENDOUSLY SUCCESSFUL, when compared to ALL the other religions.

We will NEVER like to discuss about anything which is INSIGNIFICANT, but ISLAM IS HUGELY SIGNIFICANT as the Fastest Growing Religion in the entire World, not only Europe or America or Africa or Asia or Australia. ISLAM as a religion is Growing Everywhere, by the Grace of the Almighty Allah.

This is not there in the case of other religions, because THEY ARE ALL OBSOLETE NOW. Only ISLAM is the One and Only LIVE/TRUE religion in this World, hence SPREADING.

There is a tremendous CAMPAIGN GOING AROUND THE WORLD TO DEMONISE ISLAM to put a STOP ON ITS GROWTH.

Please do not Demonise ISLAM, Read the Noble Quran to understand what ISLAM really is.

We live in a country where women are over-sexualised and sold as 'products' for capitalist gains. A woman's beauty is splashed around everywhere, and she is only judged by that. Islam tells a woman to cover up so that she is not abused as Western women are.

Islam is the fastest growing faith in Britain. Hundreds and thousands of Brits are reverting to Islam. By the middle of this century, over half of Brits would be Muslims."I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion for from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Saviour of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the muchneeded peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today." [G.B. Shaw, THE GENUINE ISLAM, Vol. 1, No. 81936.] Iftikhar Ahmadhttp://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

I see that one of Claire Khaws favourite films is the Life of Brian.Would that the same outfit could set their talents to Surah 33 where our aging roue gets the nod from Allah for a final throw of the sexual dice having caught sight of his adopted son's wife;an episode which causes his harem shimmer with discontent.AND MUCH MORE!

Johnny Rottenborough, I just ignore anything in the Hadith - and your source is from the Hadith - that contradicts the Koran.

I am promoting *Secular* Koranism (which invites people to agree that the the Koran is a good enough guide to mankind whether or not we believe in God). Since I have never been a Muslim, I cannot be an apostate.

There is always trouble when one involves oneself in human affairs, Johnny Rottenborough.

There are Sikhs who join the BNP because they hate Muslims and the hatred goes back to Partition. But what can you do, eh?

Your communicant respectfully suggests a solution to the problems created by Islam.

The UK continues to maintain a Foreign Aid Budget of some GBP 10 billion pa. Would it not make sense to use this allocation to export the unemployed to Islamic lands? Your communicant suspects that many, if not most, of the unemployed are Muslims. After all, why work if everything depends on the Will of Allah and the Christians believe in alms for the poor?

On arrival in Kabul/Karachi/Khandahar, the unemployed/Muslims would be encouraged (by suitably trained 'Guards') to build a dwelling for their own use, funded by the relieved British tax-payer. A basic living allowance would be paid to emmigrants during construction, for a period not exceeding one year. It is not unreasonable to expect that up to 500,000 unemployed/Muslims could be resettled each year with a bit of organisation. Funds would need to be deployed for madrassars and hospitals too, but only to local rather than UK standards.

Communicants will appreciate that the incentive not to become unemployed in the UK would be considerable. If there are 2.5m Muslims in the UK and total unemployment is 2.6m one can see that the effort required to purge the UK of its affliction will be relatively short-term on the basis of this proposal.

One might also expect that the debate in favour of Islam/Khoranism would become less vocal too.

So why have ConservativeHome not commissioned an article on disestablishment?

Why have ConservativeHome not commissioned an article on the need for the Church of England to acquire some teeth?

Why play along with the Establishment-media narrative of the demise and death of Christianity and the inexorable ascendancy of Islam, when such a proposal can only make Christians feel more hated by the Establishment than they already are.

I think you may have at least half answered your own questions.

There is said to be a law of unintended consequences. However in the real world consequences are almost infinitely more intended then most people would wish to believe, even in their worse possible nightmares.

The establishment is not run by bible believing Christians, it is run by Orders loyal to the RCC. Who are intern working ever more closely with other pagan/Sun worshipping/spiritualist belief systems, for example Zionism, Fascism, Judaism, Islamism, and environmentalism, among many others.

Which I hope you will agree, apart from a lot of 'isms, is a fairly one sided battle, that would appear to provide for only one winner without some kind of timely Divine intervention

Before an 'enemy' can be easily destroyed it is usually a good idea to first make it mad. Also advisable to perform the subversive deed from within and fairly slowly so that the victim does not understand that it is being destroyed before it is far to late for the condemned to do anything about it.

The condemned in this case being bible believing Christians in particular, and protestantism in general.

There you are YOU NOW HAVE YOUR ANSWER SPELLED OUT TO YOU. The Establishment has only one thing in common with our Lord, they both move in mysterious ways.

The question is. What are you going to do about it?

My advice is this.

Do nothing but prey, it may not help, there again it may help a great deal.

However doing anything material is completely futile.

Firstly because there is perfectly nothing materially useful that you can do. The terrestrial powers against you are overwhelming to say the least.

Secondly there really is no point because salvation is not to be found anywhere on this sublunary abode, and it is best not to expend much emotional energy looking for it. To overly love this planet, or your own fleeting time inhabiting it, is to reject God. This illusionary world cannot be saved from itself it is indeed doomed to eventually self destruct.

Only consciousness is eternal.

On a personal note.

ALL organized religions are EVIL beyond short description. Only human beings are capable of love, the will of God, and therefore good.

If you need someone else brandishing a Koran or any other Bible to tell you how to be good, and to smack your proverbial backside when not being so. Then you are either insane, a child, or dangerously childlike.

What you are not is bad, because only systems, ideologies, establishments or organizations contain the power of hate and therefore EVIL. They are not, and never could have been, the salvation of mankind.

These entities are the serpent in the garden, the corruptors of the soul.

“In other words, it is your very powerlessness that fuels your hatred of Muslims and all things Islamic. “

No I doubt whether it's a persons powerlessness that fuels hatred but more the barbarity and backwardness of the Islamic religion. In case you hadn't noticed Christianity has moved on a bit since the 7th century!

Ask yourself where morality comes from originally? You may say your parents, but who taught them? Our roots lie in the Christian teachings of Jesus and if these Christian values are allowed to fade and die off as they quickly will in 3 or 4 generations if not nurtured and passed on, there will be a vacuum for the religion of war that's already establishing itself, to take a real hold. Therefore, it is important that the country retain a core religion. Ours is Christianity, it may have to be revised again to make it more relevant but the basic principles remain the same.

“My intention is rather to create an enlightened kind of Islam called Anglican Islam.”

Well we don't want Anglican Islam, what twaddle. You can take your little book of hate with it's backward ideologies and shove it. People don't want it.

I read Melanchatons article on con home pts 1&2 and I am little surprised your grace has done a post on it and am further surprised by the number of Athiests placing their twopenneth worth for what they see as as a sore .I have pretty much worked out my view on this , and it being three pronged and perhaps relieing on rhetoric , but for now the athiests have nothing to crow about .1) were Islam to become the state religion you may enjoy all the apsects of it and join in its terrorist evangelism unto its idea of a Kaliphate , although I would point out you may not be able to revert back once you have done the deed. there may be few grumbles from the womens rights movements who perhaps would see it as retrograde and miss any chance of being a bishop or even driving a car , but hey lets embrace all the social progress that islam has brought .

2) Sunday would then become a national shopping day , but compulsory friday evening prayers would clear the motorways particulary on bank holidays

3) An awful lot of book burning would have to take place as the bibles new testament would be heretical, perhaps the odd martyrd vicar who says we are nothing without the holy trinity and cross and Melanchaton would pretty much have succeeded in his ambition for changes sake

Do not ever wish for Islam to be enforced in this country. The effect it has on women is to degrade them to mere objects. We are not all feminists, despite what some of you might think.

The simplest thing to do is to simply not have a state religion. As it is, we already have parents complaining about their children attending "Christian" assemblies in schools; they are in the minority but still expect us to give in to their every demand. Therefore, rather than substitute with another religion, make no substitute at all other than "no religion".If, as someone has said, fifty percent of Brits will be Muslim by the middle of the century, then I am thankful that, by then, old age will have taken me out of the world altogether.I am uncertain why this article was raised on ConHome; it prodded to the very depths of my suspicions. Though I no longer attend church, I prefer the gentle teachings of Christ rather than the enforced obedience of Islam. It's a no-brainer, really; but people need to wake up because although this might have been just an article to provoke debate, they always say "there's no smoke without fire".

"Melancthon"'s self-righteous pomposity in tiredly proclaiming the same old 'truths' - the Conservative Party is no longer conservative, etc, etc, ad nauseam - is of legendary proportions. He had to jump the shark at some point and now has.

You are clearly a zealot which probably means that your grasp on reality is limited.

There is no god, not yours, nor any of the thousands that man has invented since the beginning of time.

You have been brainwashed my friend and this is the problem with Islam. As it requires total submission and obedience you can never step outside and look at it objectively. Many Christians have doubts which you would probably see as weakness, but it is you that is weak as it is human intelligence that has driven progress and will continue to do so. Progress requires the constant questioning of received wisdom, doubt is not only healthy it is essential; to have no doubt is to remain ignorant. Your belief keeps you tethered to a past dominated by ignorance and superstition, which rejects science as the explanation for our existence in favour of faith that is blind to reason.

In the nations where your faith dominates there is nothing but cruelty and intolerance, misogyny and homophobia. Do you really expect we in the developed world are going to stand for this on our own countries? Our British society has come along way in the last thousand years whereas you faith has stood still. Our secular society protects your right to pursue your religion but rest assured if your faith attempts to undermine our values then it will be driven from of these and all other shores where democracy and the rule of law are pre-eminent.

"Ask yourself where morality comes from originally? You may say your parents, but who taught them? Our roots lie in the Christian teachings of Jesus and if these Christian values are allowed to fade and die off as they quickly will in 3 or 4 generations if not nurtured and passed on, there will be a vacuum for the religion of war that's already establishing itself, to take a real hold. Therefore, it is important that the country retain a core religion. Ours is Christianity, it may have to be revised again to make it more relevant but the basic principles remain the same."

Marie, the advantage of Islam is that it has a book that it claims is the actual Word of God.

It is therefore superior in authenticity to the Old and New Testament which are but *secondary* sources of God's word and which Muslims claim has been corrupted or distorted over the ages.

The Koran is of course the *primary* source of God's Word.

All the Abrahamic faiths promote family values. The trouble with Christianity is that so many parts of the Old Testament are so obviously inhumane that both Jews and Christians have interpreted them out of existence, eg stoning to death unmarried ex-virgins, those who break the Sabbath, disobedient sons etc.

The Koran, read as a contract with God, encourages literacy and the rule of law.

Since the Koran is meant to be the Word of God, Muslims should actually consult it a lot more than they do, and the reason why they are now so backward is that they do not.

Do read it, Marie, and once you do you will see that I am right and agree with me, which is perhaps why you will probably stay well clear of it and fear to pick it up.

Western Civilization is not a dream that's over. It's not ephemeral. You can't get away from it.It's not in technology, though technology arose from it.It's not in modernity, though modernity arose from it.Read the Quran.Then read the Iliad and Voltaire, read Locke's essays. What are the preconceptions of these documents?What do they say about human nature, the individual and society, the past, the future?If you do not want to convert to Islam, then know precisely why you don't want to convert to it.That's good, but it's not enough. You have to go into the huge amount of texts produced in Western history and find meaning in them.If the CofE has no meaning for you, fine. But the CofE is not just the churches. It's a set of books, the BCP and the Anglican Service Book. I suspect that few of you know that the last text even exists, because it's been suppressed. Thoughts are important now. And if you find yourself frightened of Islam, you will submit and convert to it. You'll do anything to keep the peace.But if you find something Western of your own, you may have a platform to stand upon in the future.

The Quran is an amalgam of Hinduism, Buddhism, Mythraism, Greek mystery religions, as well as elements from Judaism and Christianity.The Quraysh tribe (Muhammad's tribe ) was previously devoted to Allah, the moon god. Muhammad's father was Abd-Allah. His Uncle, Obied-Allah. His mother, Aminah, was known to have been involved in the occult.Pagans who lived in Saudi Arabia before Muhammed was born worshipped toward Mecca because Mecca is where their idols were located. Because this pagan worship centered on Mecca was so widespread, a rapid acceptance of Muhammad's new religion was possible. Thus, Islam is a previously heathen religion modified into a monotheistic form by discarding all the other pagan gods except for Al-Ilah.

It becomes quite obvious reading and comparing the Koran and the Bible that Allah and Yahweh( the God of Abraham, Isaac,and Jacob) are not the same person.

“It is therefore superior in authenticity to the Old and New Testament which are but *secondary* sources of God's word and which Muslims claim has been corrupted or distorted over the ages. The Koran is of course the *primary* source of God's Word.”

I think you'll find the Koran is a hotch potch of fantasy with bits having been stolen from the Bible and the Torah and that it was written by others as Mohammed was illiterate. Its been twisted and altered and is full of contradictions.

I think that you would be very sorry if islam would become the state religion in Britain, because in an islamic state you would not last more than ten minutes with your blasphemous statement you have made here and at Conhomes site

You have the freedom to speak your views quite freely without fear thanks to the Christain values of Britain, there is no-where in the islamic world yuo would be be permitted such freedom

In October 2008, the authorities arrested a blogger, Reda Abdel Rahman, who was affiliated with a religious group: the Quranist movement. Rahman's blog called for political and religious reform in Egypt. The authorities charged Rahman with "insulting Islam." Rahman spent nearly three months in detention. He complained about being physically abused. He was released in January 2009

Mr/Miss/Mrs/Ms Notaliar,I have no intention to blog about Devadasi because the India's National Commission for Women, which is mandated to protect and promote the welfare of women, is doing quite a fine job about the Devadasi situation

I have reflected. Though I believe I had a potentially-fruitful point to make, I didn't know well enough what I wanted to do with it, and in grasping at straws for a solution I submitted to the Despair of Saruman. If despair were required, I should have preferred your path - the Depair of Théoden King: "Fell deeds awake: fire and slaughter! Spear shall be shaken, shield be splintered, a sword-day, a red day, ere the sun rises! Ride now, ride now! Ride to ruin, and the World's ending!!"You were right, and I was wrong. So now I shall be silent, unless and until I have something of real value to say.

Pardon me kind sir with a godly name, Shiva. You seem eager to blog about Islam, tell me Shiva, where were you when the Siamese overran the Malay Sultanate of Pattani in 1771 and started the current situation at hand? Where were you when the unarmed demonstrators were killed by Thailand security forces (not a terrorist group) by stockpiling them like logs on top of each other in order to save some gas in Tak Bai massacre on October 25, 2004? 78 of them died in trucks as a result of a slow death from the sardine-strangulation arrangement. Where were you when the Spanish and the US imperialist garrotted the Sultanate of Mindanao and left anarchy in the region to this very day?

Somchai Neelapaiji disappeared into thin air for facing the Thais peacefully. If peace has been stolen from the Muslims, how could you expect them to act peacefully?

You can watch them before they died at the link below. All tied up and helpless at the mercy of their captors. As always. But no worries, Muslims don’t deserve mercy. They are just like the pariahs.

Graham, you cant have less Religion. Even your shallow Humanism is a Religion. I knw you'll never admit that because you hate Religion so much but it is. Why shoudl I se Religion as a social prob,em when poeple lie you want to promote Religious Values? its not like beign an Atheist makes you not Religious, nor is it True that you just arive at all yoru beelifs through self evident Truth though about Rationally. Your belwifs are as much a Reliious Faith as anyone elses.

Furher, yoru claim that Christanity is in decliune is a bit silly. You claim that most pepel do not beleive in God any longer, but have no evidence to prove this. None. Also, what about Revivals? I've asked of them before. You never answer.

That said and to all, lets face some reality. The Churh of England needs revival, not abandonment. Once it restores its own mission and Truthfulness to its cause, it willrise again. To abolish the State Religion is to make the State follow the new State Religion that Mr. Davies follows, a Humanism that lead sonly to a Culture of Death and decline.

I say we restore Christianity, not abolish it.

Christianity is more Rational and better able to secure Social Cohesion than either Islam or Humanism.

I was a twinkle in my great great great... grand-fathers eye in 1771 when the Malay Sultanate of Pattani joined forces with Burma to attack Siam, so who started the present situation today.

Oh yes the Tak Bai massacre on October 25, 2004, wasn't that where several thousands muslims stormed a police to release six brothers who where detained for handing out weapons, that were stolen from Rajanakarin army camp Jan 4 2004 when four Thai soldiers were killed when about 30 armed muslims stormed the depot a cache and stole 300 assault rifles, 40 pistols and two M-60 machine guns. This incident quickly escalated into large scale violence, with insurgents killing 600 people in a series of bombings and shootings aimed mainly at the police and the military, but also many civilians. Some bombings were directed at non-Muslim

On 28 April 2004, more than 100 militants carried out terrorist attacks against 10 police outposts across Pattani, Yala and Songkhla provinces in southern Thailand

Sorry M8 I have very little sympathy for the people who attacked the police at Tak Bai, especially in light of the wholesale murder of over 3000 monks teachers and innocent Thais killed by muslim insurgents. The same insurgent who are linked by there faith to those in Indonesia who are killing christians, and for the recent church bombing in Iraq.

I have no more to say in the matter here because out of due respect to the owner of this blog, this is not the place to discuss the Thai islamic insurgency

Quite right, but the numbers of the dead is quite surprising; I wonder where did you get it. Do you have Muslim body count also?

The powerful and dominating Siam were threatened by all of its neighbours? What a joke! You should really equip yourself with some history lesson before thinking Siam was a docile imperialist power.

Something for you to ponder upon, on what the Siamese were and some still are,

"Panic and terror immediately struck the whole of Kedah. Similar counter-attacks by the Siamese army had shown that its policy in such cases was one of terror and extermination and the Malays knew that torture and atrocity would be the order of the day. Osborn described various acts of cruelty invading Siamese armies were prone to, including cooking human beings alive. Prisoners were stripped naked and, with their hands tied behind their backs and large piece of fat lashed to their heads, put into hollow tree trunks. "Then a slow steady fire was maintained round it, the unfortunate victim's sufferings by these means terribly prolonged, his shrieks and exclamations being responded to by the exultant shouts of his executioners."

Violence would only spark another. One example,"Attacks on Buddhists have increased since a shooting last week at a Narathiwat mosque, where unknown gunmen killed 10 Muslims at prayer and wounded 12 more."

The Muslims were praying in their house of pray and they were gunned down, shot in the back, in cold blood. Siamese soldiers were swarming around the place and the gunmen eluded them like the clouded leopard.

The terror and death the Muslims were facing since the annexation would surely turn some of them into terrorists. Look what the British had done, they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and none of them were terrorising nor killing the British then nor overrunning their country with ruthless military forces. The British on the other hand, is repeating history of invasion.

Please tell me why do you hate the Muslims so much, Shiva? Why are you using the Hindu god name? And why are you using such a violent dog as your face?

In Slavic mythology, Šiwa or Šiva, Shiva, Živa or Sieba, was the goddess of fertility and love. She was worshiped throughout what is now Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Germany (and especially the Elbe (Labe) river valley) before Christianity expanded into the area. Her name means "living, being, existing." Sieba is married to Siebog, the male god of love and fertility.

So now this is why I laugh when many assume I am Hindu

Interestly, I have the same name and picture for many years without one hindu has mentioned anything yet many muslims seem to make comments, Hmmmm what would the muslim reaction be if I used the same picture but called myself Mahound?

Thanx for the first link, if you had read the forum completely you would see that it comfirms what I say that the Malays/muslim where the aggressors

Just because I am critical of islam does not mean I hate muslims, it is your perceived victim hood that leads you to such a conclusion. In fact muslims are the greatest victims of islam.

Thailand's government has called an emergency cabinet meeting on measures to end violence in the country's troubled south after news that the death toll from ongoing attacks in the region has topped 3,000.

I love Claire's comment:"Conservatism is about low taxes, small government, family values and punishing criminals properly."

Quite right. Though I would add "Personal Responsibility" to this list to make it complete.

I think you're taking Melanchthon too seriously. Even despite the claims it was 'serious' I suspect it was to stimulate debate. I rather enjoyed the argument that religion is important to the state - not one you hear often these days as proved by your own commentors here!

Thanks for the info, but let's be frank you and I, if an occupier is occupying your house, without your consent, intimidating you with death and torture, demanding your submission to his whims, taking whatever that you cherished for his pleasure, what would you do? And how do you know the detainees in the police station were terrorists? Care to share the link.

Honestly, I have a feeling you have never evan been to the South of Thailand, it is a great place with some really great beaches, also most of the people there do not want the insurgents to be there, they are no more than warlords

You ask for a link. So what better than to give a link from Sweden, which is to say the least very pro Patani United Liberation Organization (PULO,) even some of its leaders live there

I ask you again, you said before that the 3k victims were non Muslims, where are the statistics for the Muslims? Could you at least, quote some of your facts, I won't be able to read them all now, can I?

I wrote wholesale murder of over 3000 monks teachers and innocent Thais killed by muslim insurgents, I did not mention settlers.

Read page 11 in the above link.

Ahh now the penny drops for me, though I write innocent Thais, which includes Buddhists and muslim, you do not recognize Thai muslims as Thai but as malay muslim.

You are wrong ...........

Do not treat the Muslim in the south as colonial subjects … because we feel that the Thais are treating us like colonial subjects… If you treat us that way, it is not going to be peaceful. You have to treat us as citizens of Thailand: Wan Kadir, president of the armed separatist group Barisan Islam Pembangunan Pattani

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)